2015-12-01 23:26 GMT+08:00 Ryan Arnold :
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 1:24 AM, Barry Song <21cn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> hi guys,
>> sorry maybe my question is stupid as i am not a toolchain guy.
>>
>> i have no idea why ld.so search so many paths. fo
hi guys,
sorry maybe my question is stupid as i am not a toolchain guy.
i have no idea why ld.so search so many paths. for example, put
"-rpath" with /home/cnb1szh/test in a simple test program. then during
dynamic linking at runtime, we get the below linking debug
information:
30693: find librar
2013-07-30 10:01 GMT+08:00 Zhenqiang Chen :
> The Linaro Toolchain and Platform Working Groups are pleased to
> announce the 2013.07 release of the Linaro Toolchain Binaries, a
> pre-built version of Linaro GCC and Linaro GDB that runs on generic
> Linux or Windows and targets the glibc Linaro Eval
Ulrich,
thanks a lot!
2012/2/4 Ulrich Weigand :
> Barry Song <21cn...@gmail.com> wrote.
>> 2012/2/3 Ulrich Weigand :
>> > However, from looking at the gdbserver sources provided with Android,
>> > it seems there are some differences; in particular, there&#x
2012/2/3 Thiago Jung Bauermann :
> Hi Barry,
>
> On Thu, 2012-02-02 at 10:23 +0800, Barry Song wrote:
>> 2. Why can’t the current gdb capture multithreads for android
>> processes? This question is actually about the theory for gdb to know
>> multi-threads. In my op
Hi Ulrich,
2012/2/3 Ulrich Weigand :
> Barry Song <21cn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> So my questions are:
>>
>> 1. Should I compile the native gdb using android toolchain and android
>> bionic/libthread libraries?
>> 2. Why can’t the current gdb cap
Hi guys,
I compile a native gdb using linaro 2011.10 by “./configure
--host=arm-none-linux-gnueabi --target=arm-none-linux-gnueabi”, and
the gdb runs on arm target boards directly.
# gdb
GNU gdb (Linaro GDB) 7.3-2011.10
Copyright (C) 2011 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
License GPLv3+: GNU GPL versi
2011/6/1 Christian Robottom Reis :
> On Wed, Jun 01, 2011 at 11:18:04AM +0800, Barry Song wrote:
>> > Hi Barry. Have a look at the toolchain flyer:
>> > https://wiki.linaro.org/WorkingGroups/ToolChain/Flyer
>> >
>> > At any one time we run a development s
2011/5/31 Michael Hope :
> On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 1:56 AM, Barry Song <21cn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 2011/5/29 Fathi Boudra :
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> The Linaro Team is pleased to announce the release of Linaro 11.05.
>>>
>>> 11.05 is the s
2011/5/29 Fathi Boudra :
> Hi,
>
> The Linaro Team is pleased to announce the release of Linaro 11.05.
>
> 11.05 is the second public release that brings together the huge amount of
> engineering effort that has occurred within Linaro over the past 6 months.
>
> This is the first release delivering
hat you can help. Anyway, thank you
guys very much.
>
>
> On 2011/4/28 06:06 PM, Barry Song wrote:
>> Hi Andrew,
>>
>> 2011/4/28 Andrew Stubbs > <mailto:andrew.stu...@linaro.org>>:
>>> On 28/04/11 09:59, Barry Song wrote:
>>>>
>>>
Hi Loïc,
2011/4/28 Loïc Minier :
> Hey
>
> I've let this one through, but in the future would you please gzip your
thanks for your help.
> attachments so that they are smaller than 100 KiB total, or host them
> somewhere?
of course ok.
>
> Thanks!
> --
> Loïc Minier
-barry
__
2011/4/28 Andrew Stubbs :
> On 28/04/11 02:30, Barry Song wrote:
>>
>> I am using the newest binary utils(2.21) and encounted the following
>> ASSERT in
>> arm_elf32.c:
>> + if (out_attr[i].i == 0)
>> + {
>> +
tils) 2.21 assertion fail
/home/vmuser/development/toolchain/build-toolchain/binutils-2.21/bfd/elf32-arm.c:10172
i didn't verify whether gcc has this issue too.
Thanks
Barry
2011/4/27 Barry Song <21cn...@gmail.com>:
> In the Tag_FP_arch case (i=Tag_FP_arch) of
>
with
in_attr[Tag_ABI_HardFP_use].i .
Which compiling option changes out_attr[Tag_ABI_HardFP_use].i to 3?
And which compiling options set out_attr[i].i to 0?
Thanks
Barry
2011/4/28 Barry Song <21cn...@gmail.com>:
> Hi All,
> I found Jie has committed a patch
> "http://sourcewar
Hi All,
I found Jie has committed a patch
"http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2010-05/msg00083.html";.
I am using the newest binary utils(2.21) and encounted the following ASSERT in
arm_elf32.c:
+ if (out_attr[i].i == 0)
+ {
+ BFD_ASSERT (out_attr[Tag_ABI_Ha
2011/4/27 Barry Song <21cn...@gmail.com>:
> 2011/4/27 Mark Brown :
>> On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 11:00:18PM +0800, Barry Song wrote:
>>> 2011/4/27 Mark Brown
>>
>>> > If we do have to do something in the callers rather than in do_div() the
>>>
2011/4/27 Mark Brown :
> On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 11:00:18PM +0800, Barry Song wrote:
>> 2011/4/27 Mark Brown
>
>> > If we do have to do something in the callers rather than in do_div() the
>> > annotation seems substantially more taseful than inserting a random
2011/4/27 Mark Brown
>
> On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 04:50:12PM +0800, Barry Song wrote:
>
> > Marking pll_factors() as noinline or putting asm("" : "+r"(source)); before
> > the
> > call to do_div() works around the problem.
>
> If we do have
2011/4/27 Andrew Stubbs :
> On 27/04/11 10:23, Barry Song wrote:
>>
>> the target binary got crash while running on armv7 board, not gcc :-)
>
> I suspect I know what the problem is here.
>
> Can you try again with -fno-shrink-wrap, please?
i guess it is re
2011/4/27 Andrew Stubbs :
> On 27/04/11 10:08, Barry Song wrote:
>>
>> Hi All,
>>
>> As i have frequently said, we are using 2011.3 4.5 linaro gcc. For the
>> following codes, if we compile it by -O2, it will crash with "segment
>> fault", if we ju
2011/4/27 Andrew Stubbs :
> On 27/04/11 09:44, Barry Song wrote:
>>
>> Thanks. I am totally thinking it is a gcc bug not an optimization
>> feature. in fact, __aeabi_uldivmod is never called as seen by objdump.
>> It only exists in symbol reference list.
>
>
Hi All,
As i have frequently said, we are using 2011.3 4.5 linaro gcc. For the
following codes, if we compile it by -O2, it will crash with "segment
fault", if we just comment " if(unifi_debug >= level) {", all will be
ok.
If we don't compile it by -O2, all will be ok too.
#include
#include
#in
2011/4/27 Michael Hope :
> On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 1:48 PM, Barry Song <21cn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 2011/4/26 Barry Song <21cn...@gmail.com>:
>>> Hi Michael,
>>>
>>> 2011/4/26 Michael Hope :
>>>> Hi Barry. I think the toolchain is oper
2011/4/26 Nicolas Pitre :
> On Tue, 26 Apr 2011, Michael Hope wrote:
>
>> Yip, so the compiler spots these two lines:
>> Ndiv = target / source;
>> Nmod = target % source;
>>
>> and turns them into
>> Ndiv, Nmod = __aeabi_uldivmod(target, source)
>
> Why would gcc do that? All
2011/4/26 Barry Song <21cn...@gmail.com>:
> Hi Michael,
>
> 2011/4/26 Michael Hope :
>> Hi Barry. I think the toolchain is operating correctly here. The
>> current version recognises a divide followed by a modulo and optimises
>> this into a call to the standar
IXED_PLL_SIZE * (long long)Nmod;
do_div(Kpart, source);
If commenting "source /= 2", the problem disappear.
>
> -- Michael
>
> On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 12:45 AM, Barry Song <21cn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi All,
>> I am using 2011.3 4
Hi All,
I am using 2011.3 4.5 linaro GCC(armv7-a vfpv3d16) to compile kernel
and modules. I select to compile all codecs as modules:
"config SND_SOC_ALL_CODECS
tristate "Build all ASoC CODEC drivers"
"
as M and I2C/SPI too.
Then in the kernel dir, run "make" to get both vmlinux and modul
2011/3/30 Michael Hope :
> On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 5:40 PM, Barry Song <21cn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 2011/3/24 Michael Hope :
>>> Hi Barry. The short answer is 'it depends' :)
>>>
>>> GCC is more than a compiler and includes other things such
2011/3/24 Michael Hope :
> On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 2:59 AM, Barry Song <21cn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 2011/3/24 Andrew Stubbs
>>>
>>> On 24/03/11 11:05, Imre Kaloz wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, 24 Mar 2011 11:36:17 +0100, Andrew Stubbs
>>
2011/3/24 Andrew Stubbs
>
> On 24/03/11 11:05, Imre Kaloz wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 24 Mar 2011 11:36:17 +0100, Andrew Stubbs
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> However, you can build your own compiler from the Linaro sources, and
>>> then build the libraries you need to match, and you can have v5 support.
>>> This is
Hi All,
After downloading linaro toolchain by apt-get in ubuntu, I compiled
the uboot for ARM1136 SoC with -march=armv5 option. And it can compile
successfully. Then I let the uboot run on target boards and system
failed due to "undefined instructions". Checked linaro toolchain
options, it is:
#ar
32 matches
Mail list logo
